SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 312 Page 1 of 10

180 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Garcia vs. Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 133140. August 10, 1999.

JOSE MA. T. GARCIA, petitioner, vs. COURT OF

APPEALS, SPS. LUISITO & MA. LUISA MAGPAYO AND
PHILIPPINE BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS,
respondents.

Actions; Pleadings and Practice; Summary Judgments; Under

Rule 34, either party may move for a summary judgment–the
claimant by virtue of Section 1 and the defending party by virtue
of Section 2.–Petitioner’s third assignment of error that he alone
as plaintiff in the trial court is entitled to summary judgment
merits scant

_______________

*
FIRST DIVISION.

181

VOL. 312, AUGUST 10, 1999 181

Garcia vs. Court of Appeals

attention. A summary judgment is one granted by the court, upon

motion by either party, for an expeditious settlement of the case,
there appearing from the pleadings, depositions, admissions, and
affidavits that no important questions or issues of fact are
involved (except the determination of the amount of damages) and
that therefore the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a
matter of law. Under Rule 34, either party may move for a
summary judgment– the claimant by virtue of Section 1 and the
defending party by virtue of Section 2.
Ownership; Possession; Words and Phrases; “Ownership– and
“Possession,– Distinguished; Ownership exists when a thing
pertaining to one person is completely subjected to his will in a
manner not prohibited by law and consistent with the rights of
others while possession is defined as the holding of a thing or the
enjoyment of a right.–We stress again that possession and
ownership are distinct legal concepts. Ownership exists when a
thing pertaining to one person is completely subjected to his will
in a manner not prohibited by law and consistent with the rights
of others. Ownership confers certain rights to the owner, one of
which is the right to dispose of the thing by way of sale. Atty.
Pedro Garcia and his wife Remedios exercised their right to

file://ggwpc/Cases/mht/Garcia%20v.%20Court%20of%20Appeals_files/a.htm 3/27/2021
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 312 Page 2 of 10

dispose of what they owned when they sold the subject

property to the Magpayo spouses. On the other hand, possession is
defined as the holding of a thing or the enjoyment of a right.
Literally, to possess means to actually and physically occupy a
thing with or without right. Possession may be had in one of two
ways: possession in the concept of an owner and possession of a
holder. “A possessor in the concept of an owner may be the owner
himself or one who claims to be so.– On the other hand, “one who
possesses as a mere holder acknowledges in another a superior
right which he believes to be ownership, whether his belief be right
or wrong.– The records show that petitioner occupied the property
not in the concept of an owner for his stay was merely tolerated by
his parents.
Same; Same; Land Titles; Sales; Mortgages; Registration does
not confer ownership, it is merely evidence of such ownership over
a particular property; The deed of sale operates as a formal or
symbolic delivery of the property sold and authorizes the buyer to
use the document as proof of ownership.–We also uphold the Court
of Appeals in holding that the mortgage to PBCom by the
Magpayo spouses is valid notwithstanding that the transfer
certificate of title over the property was issued to them after the
mortgage contract

182

182 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Garcia vs. Court of Appeals

was entered into. Registration does not confer ownership, it is

merely evidence of such ownership over a particular property. The
deed of sale operates as a formal or symbolic delivery of the
property sold and authorizes the buyer to use the document as
proof of ownership. All said, the Magpayo spouses were already
the owners when they mortgaged the property to PBCom.

PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the

Court of Appeals.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

Francisco G. Joaquin III for petitioner.
Laogan, Silva, Baeza & Llantino Law Offices for
PBCom.
Sison, Salomon, Gonong, Riel-Sison and Associates
for Luisito and Ma. Luisa Magpayo.

PUNO, J.:

This is a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of

Court to set aside the decision rendered by the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. No. 44707 entitled “Jose Ma. T. Garcia,
Plaintiff-Appellee versus Spouses Luisito and Ma. Luisa
Magpayo and Sheriff of Makati, Defendants, Philippine
1

Bank of Communications, Defendant-Appellant.–

The facts are as succinctly summarized by the appellate
court, viz.:

“Atty. Pedro V. Garcia, in whose name TCT No. S-31269 covering

file://ggwpc/Cases/mht/Garcia%20v.%20Court%20of%20Appeals_files/a.htm 3/27/2021
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 312 Page 3 of 10

a parcel of land identified as Lot 17 situated at Bel Air II Village,

Makati, was registered, sold with the consent of his wife Remedios
T. Garcia, the same to their daughter Ma. Luisa Magpayo and her
husband Luisito Magpayo (the Magpayos).

_______________

1
The decision reversed the summary judgment rendered by Branch 57 of the
Regional Trial Court of Makati in favor of petitioner Jose Ma. T. Garcia in Civil
Case No. 13607.

183

VOL. 312, AUGUST 10, 1999 183

Garcia vs. Court of Appeals

“On March 5, 1981, the Magpayos mortgaged the land to the

Philippine Bank of Communications (PBCom) to secure a loan,
Five Hundred Sixty Four Thousand (P564,000.00) Pesos according
to them, One Million Two Hundred Thousand (P1,200,000.00)
Pesos according to PBCom.
“On March 9, 1981, Atty. Garcia’s Title was cancelled and in its
stead Transfer Certificate of Title No. S-108412/545 was issued in
the name of the Magpayos.
“The Deed of Real Estate Mortgage was registered at the
Makati Register of Deeds and annotated on the Magpayos title.
“The Magpayos failed to pay their loan upon its maturity,
hence, the mortgage was extrajudicially foreclosed and at the
public auction sale, PBCom which was the highest bidder bought
the land.
“The redemption period of the foreclosed mortgage expired
without the Magpayos redeeming the same, hence, title over the
land was consolidated in favor of PBCom which cancelled the
Magpayo’s title and Transfer Certificate of Title No. 138233 was
issued in its name.
“On October 4, 1985, the Magpayos filed at the RTC of Makati
a complaint seeking the nullification of the extrajudicial
foreclosure of mortgage, public auction sale, and PBCom’s title
docketed as Civil Case No. 11891. This complaint was dismissed
for failure to prosecute.
“On October 15, 1985, PBCom filed at the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) of Makati a petition for the issuance of a writ of possession
over the land, docketed as LRC Case No. M-731, which Branch
148 thereof granted.
“Upon service of the writ of possession, Mrs. Magpayo’s brother,
Jose Ma. T. Garcia (Garcia), who was in possession of the land,
refused to honor it and filed a motion for Intervention in the
above-said PBCom petition, which motion was denied.
“Garcia thereupon filed against PBCom, the Magpayos, and the
RTC Sheriff the instant suit for recovery of realty and damages
wherein he alleged, inter alia, that he inherited the land as one of
the heirs of his mother Remedios T. Garcia, and that PBCom
acquired no right thereover.
“In its answer, PBCom averred, inter alia, that Garcia’s claim
over the land is belied by the fact that it is not among the
properties owned by his mother listed in the Inventory of Real
Estate filed at the then CFI of Pasay City, Branch 27, in SP Proc.
No. 2917-P, “In

file://ggwpc/Cases/mht/Garcia%20v.%20Court%20of%20Appeals_files/a.htm 3/27/2021
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 312 Page 4 of 10

184

184 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Garcia vs. Court of Appeals

the Matter of the Intestate Estate of Remedios T. Garcia Petition

for Letters of Administration, Pedro V. Garcia Petitioner-
Administrator.–
“The Magpayos, on the other hand, asserted that title over the
land was transferred to them by Mrs. Magpayo’s parents to enable
them (Magpayos) to borrow from PBCom.
“Garcia filed a Motion for Summary Judgment praying that
judgment be rendered in his favor to which PBCom counter-
motioned that judgment should be rendered in its favor.
“The court a quo denied the motion for summary judgment on
the ground that PBCom raised in its answer both factual and legal
issues which could only be ventilated in a full-blown trial.
2

“The court a quo, however, later issued a summary judgment.–

In its summary judgment, the lower court held that the

mortgage executed by the Magpayo spouses in favor of
PBCom was void. It found that:

“x x x [A]t the time that the defendants Magpayo spouses executed

the mortgage in favor of the defendant PBCom on March 5, 1981,
the said spouses were not yet the owners of the property. This
finding is evident from the other undisputed fact that a new
Torrens title was issued to the defendants Magpayo spouses only
on March 9, 1981 x x x. The Magpayo spouses could not have
acquired the said property merely by the execution of the Deed of
Sale because the property was in the possession of the plaintiff.
The vendor, Pedro V. Garcia, was not in possession and hence
could not deliver the property merely by the execution of the
document (MANALILI V. CE-SAR, 39 PHIL. 134). The conclusion
is therefore inescapable that the said mortgage is null and void for
lack of one of the essential elements of a mortgage as required by
3

Art. 2085 of our Civil Code x x x.–

Thus, it invalidated the foreclosure sale and nullified TCT

No. 138233 issued to PBCom. Dissatisfied, PBCom
appealed. In reversing the trial court, the Court of Appeals
held:

________________

2
Court of Appeals Decision, pp. 1-4; Rollo, pp. 28-31.
3
Summary Judgment, p. 4; Rollo, p. 55.

185

VOL. 312, AUGUST 10, 1999 185

Garcia vs. Court of Appeals

“(P)laintiff-appellee’s assertion that ownership over the disputed

property was not transmitted to his sister and her husband-
Magpayo spouses at the time of the execution of the Deed of Sale
as he was still in actual and adverse possession thereof does not
lie.

file://ggwpc/Cases/mht/Garcia%20v.%20Court%20of%20Appeals_files/a.htm 3/27/2021
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 312 Page 5 of 10

“For in his complaint, plaintiff-appellee alleged that he entered

into possession of the disputed property only upon the demise of
his mother, from whom he alleges to have inherited it but who
was not the registered owner of the property, that is, on October
31, 1980 (Certificate of Death, p. 17, Records), by which admission
he is bound. Since the execution of the deed of sale by Atty. Pedro
V. Garcia in favor of the Magpayos took place earlier or on August
1, 1980, then contrary to his claim, plaintiff-appellee was not in
possession of the property at the time of the execution of said
public instrument.
“Furthermore, it appearing that the vendor Atty. Garcia had
control of the property which was registered in his name and that
the deed of sale was likewise registered, then the sale was
consummated and the Magpayos were free to exercise the
attributes of ownership including the right to mortgage the land.
“ ‘When the land is registered in the vendor’s name, and the
public instrument of sale is also registered, the sale may be
considered consummated and the buyer may exercise the actions
of an owner (Tolentino, Commentaries and Jurisprudence on the
Civil Code of the Philippines, 1992 Ed., p. 55).’
“That the Magpayos’ title, TCT No. S-108412, was issued four
(4) days following the execution of the deed of real estate mortgage
is of no moment, for registration under the Torrens system does
not vest ownership but is intended merely to confirm and register
the title which one may already have on the land (Municipality of
Victorias v. Court of Appeals, 149 SCRA 32, 44-45 [1987]).–

Petitioner Garcia moved for a reconsideration of the above

decision which was denied. He now comes before us raising
the following errors committed by the Court of Appeals:

The respondent Court of Appeals has departed from the accepted

and usual course of proceedings when it decided the appeal
subject of this case based on issues which were raised neither in
the trial court nor in the appellant’s brief.

186

186 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Garcia vs. Court of Appeals

II

The Court of Appeals decided the appeal in a manner not in

accord with applicable jurisprudence when it disregarded the
admissions of the private respondents and, despite ruling that
Summary Judgment was proper, made its own findings of facts
which were contrary to the said admissions.

III

The Decision of the respondent Court of Appeals was not in

accord with established jurisprudence and even contradicts itself,
as far as the issue of the propriety of the Summary Judgment is
concerned.

The petition has no merit.

Anent the first assignment of error, petitioner alleged

file://ggwpc/Cases/mht/Garcia%20v.%20Court%20of%20Appeals_files/a.htm 3/27/2021
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 312 Page 6 of 10

that the Court of Appeals resolved the issues of

“ownership– and “possession– though they were not raised
by PBCom in its appellant’s brief. The allegation is belied
by page 17 of PBCom’s appellate brief, viz.:

“Due to the wrong cited case, the trial court opined erroneously
that ‘Magpayo Spouses could not have acquired the property
merely by the execution of the deed of sale because the property
was in the possession of the plaintiff’ (Order, p. 10).
“Again, the trial court could not distinguish ownership from
possession. Ownership and possession are two entirely different
legal concepts.
“Plaintiff-appellee’s possession as found by the trial court,
started only ‘at the time of the filing of the complaint in this
present case up to the present.’ (page 2, Summary Judgment).
“Assuming that to be true, plaintiff-appellee’s possession which
started only in 1986 could not ripen into ownership. He has no
valid title thereto. His possession in fact was that of an intruder,
one done in bad faith (to defeat PBCom’s Writ of Possession). His
possession is certainly not in the concept of an owner. This is so
because as early as 1981, title thereto was registered in the name
of the Magpayo Spouses which title was subsequently cancelled
when the property

187

VOL. 312, AUGUST 10, 1999 187

Garcia vs. Court of Appeals

was purchased by PBCom in a public auction sale resulting in the

issuance of title in favor of the latter in 1985.–

Anent the second assignment of error, petitioner contends

that the following facts were admitted by the parties in the
trial court:

“1. The petitioner is a compulsory heir of the late spouses

Atty. Pedro V. Garcia and Remedios Tablan Garcia;
“2. The property subject of this dispute was previously
the conjugal property of the said spouses;
“3. The petitioner and his family have been and are
continuously to the present in actual physical possession of
the property. At the time of the alleged sale to the
Magpayo spouses, petitioner was in possession of the
property;
“4. When his mother Remedios Tablan (sic) Garcia died,
sometime in October, 1980, he became, by operation of law,
a co-owner of the property;
“5. Atty. Pedro V. Garcia, at the time of the execution of
the instrument in favor of the Magpayo spouses was not in
4

possession of the subject property.–

We reject the contention of petitioner for a perusal of the

records shows that these alleged admitted facts are his own
paraphrased portions of the findings of fact listed by the
5

trial court in the summary judgment. Indeed, petitioner

did not cite any page number of the records or refer to any
documentary Exhibit to prove how and who admitted the

file://ggwpc/Cases/mht/Garcia%20v.%20Court%20of%20Appeals_files/a.htm 3/27/2021
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 312 Page 7 of 10

said facts.
Petitioner’s third assignment of error that he alone as
plaintiff in the trial court is entitled to summary judgment
merits scant attention. A summary judgment is one granted
by the court, upon motion by either party, for an expeditious
settlement of the case, there appearing from the pleadings,
depositions, admissions, and affidavits that no important
questions or issues of fact are involved (except the
determina-

________________

4
Petition, p. 11; Rollo, p. 19.
5
Summary Judgment, pp. 2-4; Rollo, pp. 53-55.

188

188 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Garcia vs. Court of Appeals

tion of the amount of damages) and that therefore the

6

moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.

Under Rule 34,either party may move for a summary
judgment–the claimant by virtue of Section 1 and the
defending party by virtue of Section 2, viz.:

“Section 1. Summary judgment for claimant.–A party seeking to

recover upon a claim, counterclaim, or cross-claim or to obtain a
declaratory relief may, at any time after the pleading in answer
thereto has been served, move with supporting affidavits for a
summary judgment in his favor upon all or any part thereof.
“Section 2. Summary judgment for defending party.–A party
against whom a claim, counterclaim, or cross-claim is asserted or
a declaratory relief is sought may, at any time, move with
supporting affidavits for a summary judgment in his favor as to
all or any part thereof.–

It is true that petitioner made the initial move for summary

judgment. Nonetheless, PBCom likewise moved for a
summary judgment with supporting affidavit and
documentary exhibits, to wit:

“COUNTER-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT–

“PBCom Is Entitled To A Summary Judgment–
“The procedure for summary judgment may be availed of also
by the defending parties who may be the object of unfounded
claims as clearly shown in Sections 1 and 2 of Rule 34.–
x x x.
“WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed of this Honorable
Court to render summary judgment in PBCom’s favor by
DISMISS-

_______________

6
Army and Navy Club of Manila, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 271 SCRA 36 (April
8, 1997); see also Philippine National Bank v. Noah’s Ark Sugar Refinery, 226
SCRA 36 (1993); Mercado v. Court of Appeals, 162 SCRA 75 (1988); Vergara, Sr. v.
Suelto, 156 SCRA 753 (1987).

file://ggwpc/Cases/mht/Garcia%20v.%20Court%20of%20Appeals_files/a.htm 3/27/2021
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 312 Page 8 of 10

189

VOL. 312, AUGUST 10, 1999 189

Garcia vs. Court of Appeals

ING plaintiff’s Complaint as well as Sps. Magpayo’s Cross-Claim

7

for being sham and frivolous.–

Needless to state, there was no error on the part of the

appellate court in resorting to summary judgment as
prayed for by both parties.
We stress again that possession and ownership are
distinct legal concepts. Ownership exists when a thing
pertaining to one person is completely subjected to his will
in a manner not prohibited by law and consistent with the
8

rights of others. Ownership confers certain rights to the

owner, one of which is the right to dispose of the thing by
9

way of sale. Atty. Pedro Garcia and his wife Remedios

exercised their right to dispose of what they owned when
they sold the subject property to the Magpayo spouses. On
the other hand, possession is defined as the holding of a
10

thing or the enjoyment of a right. Literally, to possess

means to actually and physically occupy a thing with or
without right. Possession may be had in one of two ways:
possession in the concept of an owner and possession of a
11

holder. “A possessor in the concept of an owner

12
may be the
owner himself or one who claims to be so.– On the other
hand, “one who possesses as a mere holder acknowledges in
another a superior right which he believes to be ownership,
13

whether his belief be right or wrong.– The records show

that petitioner occupied the property not in the concept of
an owner for his stay was merely tolerated by his parents.
We

________________

7
Comment with Counter-Motion for Summary Judgment, p. 5; Original
Record, p. 201.
8
Arturo Tolentino, Commentaries and Jurisprudence on the Civil Code
of the Philippines, p. 45 (Vol. II, 1992).
9
Other rights pertaining to ownership are the right to enjoy the thing
owned; to receive from the thing what it produces; to consume the thing by
its use; and the right to exclude other persons from possession thereof,
supra.
10
Art. 523, New Civil Code.
11
Art. 524, New Civil Code.
12
See note 7, supra at 245.
13
Id.

190

190 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Garcia vs. Court of Appeals

14

held in Caniza v. Court of Appeals that an owner’s act of

allowing another to occupy his house, rent-free does not
create a permanent and indefeasible right of possession in

file://ggwpc/Cases/mht/Garcia%20v.%20Court%20of%20Appeals_files/a.htm 3/27/2021
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 312 Page 9 of 10

the latter’s favor. Consequently, it is of no moment that

petitioner was in possession of the property at the time of
the sale to the Magpayo spouses. It was not a hindrance to
a valid transfer of ownership. On the other hand,
petitioner’s subsequent claim of ownership as successor to
his mother’s share in the conjugal asset is belied by the fact
that the property was not included in the inventory of the
estate submitted by his father to the intestate court. This
buttresses the ruling that indeed the property was no
longer considered owned by petitioner’s parents. We also
uphold the Court of Appeals in holding that the mortgage to
PBCom by the Magpayo spouses is valid notwithstanding
that the transfer certificate of title over the property was
issued to them after the mortgage contract was entered
into. Registration does not confer ownership, it is merely
15

evidence of such ownership over a particular property. The

deed of sale operates as a formal or symbolic delivery of the
property sold and authorizes the buyer to use the document
16

as proof of ownership. All said, the Magpayo spouses were

already the owners when they mortgaged the property to
17

PBCom.

________________

14
268 SCRA 640 (1997).
15
Vda. de Cabrera v. Court of Appeals, 267 SCRA 339 (1997); Halili v.
National Labor Relations Commission, 257 SCRA 174 (1996).
16
Manuel R. Dulay Enterprises, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 225 SCRA
678 (1993).
17
The New Civil Code provides:

“Art. 2085. The following requisites are essential to the contracts of pledge and
mortgage:
(1) That they be constituted to secure the fulfillment of a principal obligation;
(2) THAT THE PLEDGOR OR MORTGAGOR BE THE ABSOLUTE OWNER
OF THE THING PLEDGED OR MORTGAGED;

191

VOL. 312, AUGUST 10, 1999 191

Garcia vs. Court of Appeals

IN VIEW WHEREOF, the decision of the Court of Appeals

in CA-G.R. No. 44707 is AFFIRMED. Costs against
petitioner.
SO ORDERED.

Davide, Jr. (C.J., Chairman), Kapunan, Pardo and

Ynares-Santiago, JJ., concur.

Reviewed decision affirmed.

Notes.–A summary judgment is one granted by the

court upon motion by a party for an expeditious settlement
of a case, there appearing from the pleadings, depositions,
admissions, and affidavits that there are no important
questions or issues of fact involved, and that therefore the
moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.
(Army and Navy Club of Manila, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals,

file://ggwpc/Cases/mht/Garcia%20v.%20Court%20of%20Appeals_files/a.htm 3/27/2021
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 312 Page 10 of 10

271 SCRA 36 [1997])

Summary judgment is allowed if, except as to the
amount of damages, there is no genuine issue as to any
material fact and the moving party is entitled to a
judgment as a matter of law. (Northwest Airlines, Inc. vs.
Court of Appeals, 284 SCRA 408 [1998])

––o0o––

________________

(3) That the person constituting the pledge or mortgage have the free disposal of
their property, and in the absence thereof, that they be legally authorized for the
purpose.
Third persons who are not parties to the principal obligation may secure the
latter by pledging or mortgaging their own property.–

192

© Copyright 2021 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

file://ggwpc/Cases/mht/Garcia%20v.%20Court%20of%20Appeals_files/a.htm 3/27/2021